Results and methods: a review of 1,377 decompression charts

Author: Suzanne Frye, DC · Data source: Decompression Outcomes Review (Frye S, et al., Lancaster, CA, 2026)

Most clinics advertising spinal decompression quote a success rate no one can trace. We did the work instead: a retrospective review of 1,377 of our own patient charts spanning 2005 to 2026, published with the floor showing. This is the citable version — what the study is, the headline, how we measured it, the limits, and who we don’t treat.

The headline — with the floor beside it

Among patients who completed a full 12-to-24-session course and started with meaningful pain of at least 4 out of 10, 62% had a clinically meaningful reduction in pain at their final visit (95% CI 58–67%, n=426). Average pain fell from 6.7 to 3.5 out of 10, and 39% finished at 2/10 or less.

The worst-case floor: count every patient who ever started a course — including everyone who stopped early or whose records were incomplete — as a treatment failure, and the response rate is 34% (n=975). Under the older, looser legacy measure the same floor is 48%. That is the harshest honest reading of our data, and it belongs next to every headline number on this page.

For context, under that looser legacy measure (best score reached at any point, rather than final score) the same 426 completers give 85%. We publish the 62%.

Methods

• Population. 1,377 charts reviewed. 975 started a course of care (four or more visits). 669 completed the standard 12–24 visit course. 426 had both a meaningful starting pain score (≥4/10) and a usable final score — that group of 426 is the denominator for the headline rate.
• Outcome measure. Baseline = first recorded pain score (NRS, 0–10). Outcome = the last recorded score — the final visit, not the best point reached. A “responder” dropped at least 2 points and at least 30%. This is the strict primary definition; the legacy measure (best score at any point) is reported only as a sensitivity check.
• Who the patients were. Average age 54, half women, average starting pain 6.7/10, and 87% arrived with chronic, long-standing pain (n=294 with chronicity recorded).
• Selection check. Patients who completed the course and patients who stopped at 4–11 visits looked much the same at intake — similar age, the same 5.9 average starting pain, the same 83% chronic. Our completers were not a healthier group to begin with.
• Dose. 12–24 visits: 62% (n=426). 4–11 visits: 43% (n=102). Beyond 24 visits: 48% (n=54) — typically the harder cases.
• Safety. 18 of 702 assessed charts (2.6%) flagged a negative outcome, with no documented structural injury caused by the device — documented in routine care, so a floor, not a complete registry.

Limitations — stated plainly

• Retrospective and single-site. This is a chart review of one practice, not a randomized controlled trial. It shows what happened here; it cannot prove decompression caused every improvement.
• No cure or causal claim. We report reductions in pain over a course of care. We do not claim decompression cures, heals, or reverses any condition.
• Documented, not solicited. Safety events were captured from routine notes, so 2.6% is a floor.
• Incomplete fields. Not every chart recorded weight, BMI, or chronicity; those subgroup numbers rest on smaller samples and are labeled where thin.
• Extraction agreement not yet computed. A human-adjudicated sample to report per-field agreement is still pending.

Who we don’t treat

The honest screen is part of the method, not a marketing line. In our own data, central canal stenosis responded at the low end (45%, n=87) and post-fusion spines respond least well of all (39%, n=18 — small sample, wide uncertainty). Fusion is harder, not hopeless. We won’t take your case unless we’re confident decompression can help you — Dr. Frye reads your films herself, an MRI is not required, and she’ll tell you plainly whether you’re a candidate.

Book the $47 exam · Call (661) 949-9655

Frequently asked questions

What is the spinal decompression outcomes study? A retrospective review of 1,377 of our own patient charts (2005–2026), authored by Dr. Suzanne Frye, reporting response rates for non-surgical spinal decompression on the DRX9000, including the worst-case floor.

What is the headline result? 62% of course completers who started with meaningful pain had a clinically meaningful reduction in pain (95% CI 58–67%, n=426), with a 34% worst-case floor across everyone who started a course (n=975).

How was a “responder” defined? A drop of at least 2 points and at least 30% on a 0–10 pain scale, measured at the final visit — not the best point reached.

What are the study’s limitations? It is a single-site retrospective chart review, not a randomized trial; it cannot prove causation, safety data is a floor rather than a full registry, and extraction-agreement analysis is still pending.

Who is not a good candidate? Some spines shouldn’t be pulled at all; central canal stenosis and post-fusion spines responded least well in our data. We screen and decline cases we don’t believe decompression can help.

Related: Does spinal decompression work? · The DRX9000 · Cost & insurance · Dr. Suzanne Frye, DC · Degenerative disc disease · Spinal stenosis · Sciatica · Home